Threeson, unfortunately you're wrong. As you indicated, Mr. Farrar printed it in a book condemning abortion, which brings motive for him to present false evidence (i.e., sell the book). As this
alleged director had
allegedly spoken to an audience of
allegedly 200 people, there is absolutely no reason for Farrar to
not disclose this
alleged person's
alleged name. The claim of
"respect for privacy" is absolutely bogus, considering the
alleged circumstances.
But let me tell you what really reeks of falsehood here. Planned Parenthood does not have "
The" director, it has many directors. Each Planned Parenthood office has a director. It's a medical facility's version of a manager. But here's more to demonstrate how it reeks of falsehood. Farrar claims this person made this statement on, or shortly before, 1994. Well, in 1992, there was a very public case,
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which was about the right to have an abortion, a case addressed by the Supreme Court that was expected to reverse the previous case, Roe vs Wade. Such did not occur and instead they reaffirmed the previous decision.
So, in my firm opinion, based on everything I presented above, Farrar made it up. A little white lie, perhaps, but a lie nonetheless and one the serves no other purpose than to distract.
It was merely my assumption that it was out of respect for the man's privacy that Farrar didn't give the man's name, and I could be wrong, so perhaps I shouldn't have given a reason. Farrar didn't give the reason. Perhaps he thought it unnecessary, as it was simply an illustration in a book about much more than abortion. (Whatever his reason, for his purposes it was unnecessary. It would not materially add to his book.)
Perhaps the man slipped when he called himself "the" director. Or it is possible that Farrar mistakenly remembered "the" instead of "a." Farrar himself refers to the man as a "representative" of PP, and the term "director" comes from the supposed director's mouth. At any rate, it's an easy mistake to make. If a small typo causes an argument or piece of evidence to be thrown out, then you're on shaky ground yourself.
And one of your main arguments against the event comes tumbling down. I didn't say that it was in 1994 or shortly before, just that the book was copyrighted in 1994. Farrar doesn't say just when the event in question happened, so it could easily have been
before Planned Parenthood v. Casey. But you said, "Farrar claims this person made this statement on, or shortly before, 1994." Where did you get your information? Apparently
you are making things up. (And your claim is more significant than whether a person was "a" or "the" director of PP. Perhaps you are making up the whole PP v. Casey story?
But I know for outside reasons that you are not.)
No Threeson, there are no "legitimate" studies on either side, because a legitimate study doesn't have a side. The legitimate studies, having no sides, provides ample evidence that legalized abortion is far better than the alternatives. It does this by presenting verifiable statistics, not by making bogus, unsubstantiated claims in a book.
You make less sense than I do.
I didn't say that the studies were
intended to support one side or the other, or that they were biased. But if their
conclusions do
not support one side or the other, then they are irrelevant.
If "The
legitimate studies...provides ample evidence that legalized abortion is far better than the alternatives," then the legitimate studies'
results support the pro-legalized-abortion side, which you say makes them illegitimate. Further, I did not mean that the illustration from the book counters/negates the study mentioned; I was using it as a rather extreme example of inaccuracy in a slightly different, but related, context. (I sometimes use extreme cases to emphasize tendencies to make a point. It's somewhat like taking an argument to its logical conclusion.) Possibly it wasn't a very good example for the situation, but that's a different matter.
Hellstrom has dealt with your argument, but I'll stick to forensics.
1.You didn't call Mr Farrar - you asked your opponents to.
2. Defendents can claim the benefit of the doubt, not witnesses - that would be silly.
3. I didn't accuse anyone of lying - read my post properly before making accusations.
4. I neither know nor care anything about your Mr Farrar, but if you want to lean on him it's YOU that has to ensure he's not made of straw, not me, as you will be the one laying face-down in the mud if he collapses.
1. I used the word "call" in two different senses. Sorry. If you guys want the man's name, I don't have it, although Farrar does. His not writing it doesn't make the story false, just like his not writing the time of the event doesn't mean it didn't happen. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
2. & 4. I probably shouldn't have said it that way, but Farrar stands until you guys knock him down. As the case stands, he's been proven neither true nor false. (Other than the substitution of the definite article for the indefinite, there is neither internal nor external evidence that the story is false. And the mistake could easily have been accidental on somebody's part. I've noticed a number of typos in this discussion, but that doesn't mean that we are all talking nonsense here.) We could just drop Farrar and say no harm done to either side. Furthermore, we are not putting somebody on trial, so there are no defendants. And if a witness is presumed false without internal or external evidence against his testimony, then the whole idea of debate breaks down.
.
3. You didn't actually say he lied (although Hellstromm said he did). And I didn't actually say you accused him of lying (although Hellstromm pretty much did). So, "read my post properly before making accusations."
Now you say you didn't have an argument - okay, stop wasting our time.
You're not making any point at all here except that you have no point. Anyway, what studies?
I clarified what I meant by not having an argument: I didn't cite a study. Since I didn't cite a study, my claim that a study isn't conclusive didn't hurt me, even though it didn't really add ground to my case. It was only meant to counter the unsubstantiated suggestion in the news article TJ quoted that the "pro-abortion" (for lack of a better term) study was good, while the "pro-life" studies were seriously flawed. As for the word "studies," I mean the one discussed in the article TJ cited, the other ones (no specifics given) briefly mentioned in the article, the "
legitimate studies" Hellstromm talks about, and any other scientific or (pseudo-scientific) studies that have been mentioned or may be mentioned. My points are that
no scientific study (not even the one mentioned in TJ's article) is perfect and fully reliable, and that the studies taken collectively (even the "legitimate" studies) do not all tend to support one side, as Hellstromm claims they do (while ironically suggesting that that makes them illegitimate).